Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of )
)
Lifeline and Link Up Reform and ) WC Docket No. 11-42
Modernization )
)
Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service ) CC Docket No. 96-45
)
Lifeline and Link Up ) WC Docket No. 03-109

COMMENTS OF MEDIA ACTION GRASSROOTS NETWORK

Amalia Deloney Matthew F. Wood

Grassroots Policy Director Media Access Project
Center for Media Justice 1625 K Street, NW
436 14th Street, 5th Floor Suite 1000
Oakland, CA 94612 Washington, DC 20006
(202) 232-4300
Counsel for Media Action
Grassroots Network

April 21, 2011

 SUMMARY

Collectively, the Media Action Grassroots Network (“MAG-Net”) member organizations

submitting these comments represent communities of color, low-income communities, tribal

communities, and immigrant populations, in both rural and urban areas. As it has throughout the

course of this Lifeline and Link Up modernization proceeding, MAG-Net welcomes the

opportunity to comment on reforms designed to increase subscribership in these programs that

facilitate universal service and promote adoption by individuals in these least-served

communities. For the constituents of MAG-Net’s member organizations, making affordable

telecommunications services available to low-income individuals is key to achieving social

justice, economic equality, and a wide range of positive outcomes dependent in today’s society

on access to essential communications tools.

In initial comments and replies filed during the Joint Board’s Lifeline/Link Up

proceeding in 2010, MAG-Net Commenters and other parties recommended that the

Commission ultimately take steps to (1) raise the income threshold and streamline verification

for Lifeline eligibility, (2) automatically enroll in the Low-Income program residents of

homeless shelters as well as current participants in state and federal need-based support

programs, and (3) provide support for adoption of advanced communications services such as

mobile voice, mobile broadband, and wireline broadband.

MAG-Net Commenters vigorously endorsed the expansion of the Low-Income program

to support broadband while maintaining support for Lifeline voice services. As the MAG-Net

Commenters explained, mobile communications services and broadband access alike are

increasingly indispensible for all members of society, including members of typically

- ii -
marginalized groups, underserved regions, and low-income individuals, all of whom can utilize

these tools for a variety of economic, educational, civic, and social activities.

The Commission must update and modernize the Low-Income program in this fashion to

fulfill its universal service mission. The MAG-Net Commenters are gladdened to see that the

Commission set forth for comment in this docket several of the beneficial suggestions made by

MAG-Net and others during the Joint Board proceeding. Yet, the Commission’s most recent

notice of proposed rulemaking also proposes protections against putative waste, fraud, and

abuse, along with a cap on the size of the Low-Income funding mechanisms, which if improperly

implemented could increase barriers to adoption and deny Lifeline and Link Up assistance to

eligible recipients.

The MAG-Net Commenters support efforts to improve the fund’s accountability and

thereby maximize the benefits that flow to intended recipients. Yet the Commission should not

adopt any cap for Lifeline/Link Up, nor take any missteps that would diminish the utility of the

program for vulnerable populations, nor wait for the conclusion of any broadband “pilot”

program experiments to initiate a comprehensive transition of the Low-Income program. The

Commission must transition these funds to provide explicit support for broadband access and

services, so as to ensure that all eligible recipients can access this century’s crucial

telecommunications platforms.

- iii -
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... ii

INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 2

BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 5

DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................................. 11

I. Lifeline and Link Up Eligibility Criteria Should Define Affordability Realistically,

and Expand Program Availability to Comport with Universal Service Principles. . 11

II. Coordinated Enrollment Procedures Would Improve Program Participation and

Better Serve Qualified Potential Applicants................................................................. 14

III. The Commission Should Reexamine the “One-Per-Household” Rule in Light of the
Changed Nature of Communications Services and the Increased Need for Mobile
Connectivity..................................................................................................................... 16

IV. Improved Verification Procedures Should Not Unduly Burden Eligible Recipients.
........................................................................................................................................... 19

V. The Commission Should Expand the Low-Income Program to Provide Support for
Broadband, and Must Not Cap the Fund Nor Wait for Definitive Pilot Program
Results to Initiate this Transition. ................................................................................. 21

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 22

- iv -
 Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of )
)
Lifeline and Link Up Reform and ) WC Docket No. 11-42
Modernization )
)
Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service ) CC Docket No. 96-45
)
Lifeline and Link Up ) WC Docket No. 03-109

COMMENTS OF MEDIA ACTION GRASSROOTS NETWORK

Media Access Project, on behalf of the Access Humboldt, Center for Media Justice,

Center for Rural Strategies, Center for Social Inclusion, Chicago Media Action, Global Action

Project, Institute for Local Self Reliance, Main Street Project, Media Alliance, Media Justice

League, Media Literacy Project, Media Mobilizing Project, National Latino Farmers & Ranchers

Trade Association, Open Access Connections, Partnership of African American Churches,

People’s Production House, PCUN Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste, Reel Grrls, and

Thousand Kites (collectively, “MAG-Net” or the “MAG-Net Commenters”), submits these

comments in response to the Commission’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) in the

above-captioned dockets.1

1
See Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization; Federal-State Joint Board on
Universal Service; Lifeline and Link Up, WC Docket No. 11-42, CC Docket No. 96-45, WC
Docket No. 03-109, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 2770 (2011) (“NPRM”).
 While responding to new proposals put forward and issues raised in the NPRM, these

comments generally follow upon and reinforce comments and replies2 submitted by MAG-Net

members and allies in response to the Federal-State Joint Board Referral Order proceeding

conducted during the Summer of 2010.3

INTRODUCTION

As always, MAG-Net seeks through its participation in these proceedings to provide the

Commission with information regarding the communications service needs of individuals who

utilize the Lifeline and Link Up mechanisms that make up the Universal Service Fund (“USF”)

Low-Income program. The intended beneficiaries of these vital initiatives include members of

communities of color, low-income communities in diverse urban and rural areas alike, immigrant

populations, tribal communities, and other similarly disadvantaged and presently underserved

groups.

In the MAG-Net Joint Board Comments filed in July 2010, MAG-Net member

organizations urged the Joint Board to recommend steps that would (1) raise the 135% of federal

poverty level income maximum threshold for Lifeline eligibility; (2) automatically enroll in the

USF Low-Income program residents of homeless shelters as well as current participants in state

and federal need-based support programs; and (3) consider the current trend towards adoption of

broadband and of mobile communications, particularly in conjunction with review of the so-

2
See Comments of Media Action Grassroots Network, CC Docket No. 96-45, WC Docket
No. 03-109 (filed July 15, 2010) (“MAG-Net Joint Board Comments”); Reply Comments of
National Hispanic Media Coalition; Media Action Grassroots Network; United Church of Christ,
Office of Communication, Inc.; Benton Foundation; and Access Humboldt, CC Docket No. 96-
45, WC Docket No. 03-109 (filed July 30, 2010) (“Public Interest Reply Comments”).
3
See, e.g., Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Lifeline and Link Up, CC
Docket No. 96-45, WC Docket No. 03-109, Order, 25 FCC Rcd 5079 (2010) (“Referral Order”).

-2-
called one-per-household rule, the Commission’s related definition of eligible residences and

households, and the Low-Income program’s outreach efforts more generally.

On the whole, the MAG-Net Commenters continue to support strongly the “expansion of

the low-income program to broadband, as recommended in the National Broadband Plan,”4 along

with changes to the Lifeline and Link Up programs designed to make these mechanisms more

supportive mobile and broadband connectivity for low-income individuals.5 As the MAG-Net

Commenters explained, mobile voice and data applications and broadband capability are

increasingly vital for – and broadly used by – members of typically marginalized groups and

low-income individuals, who utilize these tools to take advantage of opportunities for economic

advancement, better self-reliance, political organizing, civic engagement, educational

improvement, artistic expression, and social interaction.

The MAG-Net Commenters, allied organizations, and a wide range of participants in the

Joint Board proceeding submitted ample evidence that improving support for mobile telephony,

mobile broadband, and wireline broadband services – while maintaining existing Lifeline support

for voice service6 – would represent a crucial evolution in the Low-Income program. MAG-Net

Commenters noted at the time that such modernization is necessary for the Commission to fulfill

its universal service mission in the evolving 21st Century economy. Thus, they called for

Lifeline and Link Up reforms that would support new adopters and users of wireless telephony

4
Referral Order ¶ 1 (citing FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, CONNECTING
AMERICA: THE NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN 172-173 (rel. Mar. 16, 2010) (“National Broadband
Plan” or “NBP”)).
5
See MAG-Net Joint Board Comments at 2.
6
See, e.g., Traci L. Morris, et al., Native Public Media and New America Foundation, New
Media, Technology, and Internet Use in Indian Country: Quantitative and Qualitative Analyses,
at 5 (June 2010), available at http://www.nativepublicmedia.org/images/stories/NPM-NAF_
New_Media_Study_2009_small.pdf (“Analog telephone reaches only one in three families in
many tribal communities.”).

-3-
and mobile broadband services in typically marginalized communities, while improving outreach

capabilities and eligibility requirements for all Low-Income program participants.

The Commission took up and set forth for comment in this docket several of the

beneficial suggestions made by MAG-Net and others during the Joint Board proceeding, and

MAG-Net welcomes the opportunity in these comments to emphasize once more the benefits of

expanded eligibility guidelines and improved outreach initiatives.

The NPRM also proposes new “protections against waste, fraud, and abuse” and methods

to “control the size of the program.”7 The MAG-Net Commenters support efforts to improve

accountability in the Low-Income program to maximize the benefits that flow to intended

recipients. They nonetheless caution the Commission against counter-productive steps that

instead would increase barriers to adoption by the very individuals that Lifeline and Link Up are

supposed to help. As the NPRM quite correctly notes, growth in the size of the Low-Income

fund “is not necessarily indicative of waste, fraud, and abuse.”8 MAG-Net commenters therefore

oppose the imposition of a cap on Low-Income assistance,9 because such a limitation inexorably

would lead to diminution or denial of Lifeline and Link Up assistance to fully qualified and

eligible recipients in need of support.

Finally, the MAG-Net Commenters offer herein some brief recommendations regarding

the “pilot program” approach, as suggested by the National Broadband Plan and discussed in the

NPRM, for transitioning the Low-Income fund to support broadband access and services.10

MAG-Net recognizes the potential value of such pilot programs, which could “test different

7
NPRM ¶ 1.
8
Id. ¶ 144.
9
See id. ¶ 145.
10
See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 273, 279-302.

-4-
approaches to providing support for broadband to low-income consumers across different

geographic areas” and could address “unique barriers faced by certain groups of low-income

non-adopters such as Tribal communities or Americans for whom English may be a second

language.”11 Nevertheless, the MAG-Net Commenters respectfully submit that the question

posed in the NPRM as to “whether…Lifeline/LinkUp can effectively support broadband

adoption by low-income households” must be answered in the affirmative. That is, whatever the

outcome of any pilot programs or the efficacy of potential alternatives to using Lifeline and Link

Up for broadband, the Commission in any event must transition its Low-Income support

program to promote and facilitate broadband adoption. The choice before the Commission is not

“whether” to provide support for broadband adoption by low-income individuals, but when and

how the Commission will undertake its duty to ensure that all eligible recipients of support can

afford access to this century’s crucial telecommunications platforms.

BACKGROUND

The community-based organizations that make up MAG-Net’s local-to-local, grassroots

advocacy network operate in a wide range of geographic regions, and are deeply engaged with

demographic groups that historically have been – and remain today – unserved and underserved

by providers of affordable telecommunications services.12 For the typically low-income

constituents and disadvantaged communities that the MAG-Net Commenters’ respective

organizations most often serve, affordable access to telecommunications services plays a key

role in attaining social justice ends. As MAG-Net’s comments in the Joint Board proceeding

explained, “[t]he social, political, educational, and economic benefits of access to affordable

11
Id. ¶ 280.
12
See MAG-Net Joint Board Comments at 3; see also “About MAG-Net,” Media Action
Grassroots Network website, at http://mag-net.org/about (last visited Apr. 20, 2011).

-5-
telecommunications services provide a means for self-sufficiency, alleviate the impact of poverty

for low-income households, serve as a form of empowerment in our digital economy and

education system, and contribute to a sense of dignity.”13 Therefore, as MAG-Net and its

members have indicated in outreach materials developed for and distributed to lawmakers,

partner organizations, community organizers, and individuals across the nation,

“[c]ommunication is an essential human need and fundamental human right,” while “widespread

availability and adoption of broadband technology is vital to U.S. jobs, and our economy.”14

Such policy considerations are central to the Communications Act and to the conception

of the Universal Service Fund enshrined in the statute. The entire purpose of the Federal

Communications Commission is “to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the

United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex,

a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with

adequate facilities at reasonable charges.”15 Section 254 of the Act reinforces this mission by

charging the Commission with promoting universal, advanced communications and information

services that are “available at just, reasonable, and affordable rates” to “[c]onsumers in all

13
MAG-Net Joint Board Comments at 3.
14
See Amalia Deloney, Center for Media Justice, “The Future of the Internet: Universal
Service Fund Subsidies” (Sept. 2010), available at http://www.mag-net.org/content/future-
internet-universal-service-fund-subsidies, and attached hereto as Attachment A.
15
47 U.S.C. § 151 (emphases added). The Communications Act may be said to have
focused originally on only “basic” telecommunications, and MAG-Net members have argued
persuasively in other proceedings that broadband Internet access is just such a basic
telecommunications service. See Comments of Center for Media Justice, Consumers Union,
Media Access Project, and New America Foundation, GN Docket No. 10-127, at 14-20 (filed
July 15, 2010). Yet no matter how the Commission may classify Internet access for regulatory
purposes, it is clear that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 expanded the universal service
mandate, as it required the Commission to define universal service in a manner that accounts for
“advances in telecommunications and information technologies and services.” See 47 U.S.C.
§ 254(c)(1).

-6-
regions of the Nation, including low-income consumers and those in rural, insular, and high cost

areas,” and “that are reasonably comparable to those services provided in urban areas…at rates

that are reasonably comparable to rates charged for similar services in urban areas.”16 As MAG-

Net has asserted consistently in its education, advocacy, and outreach on these issues, our

society’s “increasing reliance on new digital technologies – like mobile communications –

require reforms to the Universal Service Fund”17 to ensure access to fixed and mobile voice and

broadband services, which are viewed by many as the “adequate facilities”18 of the 21st century.

For all these reasons, the MAG-Net Commenters welcome the opportunities presented by

the Joint Board proceeding and now by this NPRM to comment on reforms to the Lifeline and

Link Up programs. MAG-Net continues to support broadening the Low-Income program’s

eligibility criteria, streamlining verification procedures, and devising effective outreach for

Lifeline and Link Up, all to facilitate greater access to and adoption of advanced

telecommunications services by members of the least-served communities.

The MAG-Net Commenters once again call upon the Commission to expand the Low-

Income program in order to more explicitly and readily support broadband and mobile services,

in addition to supporting continued access to voice services on which the Commission has in the

past focused Lifeline and Link Up support. Improved adoption for increasingly essential and

ubiquitous Internet offerings and information services, all of which are or should be available

over the advanced telecommunications platforms that broadband networks represent, greatly

advances the social, political, educational and economic well-being of those with affordable

16
47 U.S.C. § 254(b)(1), (3).
17
See Attachment A.
18
47 U.S.C. § 151; see also Attachment A.

-7-
access.19 For low-income individuals and typically marginalized groups, increased connectivity

and communications capability should qualify as basic household necessities on par with shelter,

health care, clothing, and energy needs. Yet without programs such as Lifeline and Link Up,

many low-income households would be forced to do without such telecommunications services

so that they can obtain other basic goods and services instead.20

The MAG-Net Joint Board comments contained additional documentation regarding the

benefits of broadband connectivity for the low-income individuals and populations that Lifeline

and Link Up support.21 Without recounting all of that evidence in this submission, the MAG-Net

Commenters incorporate herein by reference their earlier comments and reply comments in CC

Docket No. 96-45 and WC Docket No. 03-109. The majority of commenters participating in the

Joint Board proceeding agreed with the assessment that Lifeline and Link Up must be

19
As MAG-Net noted in the Joint Board proceeding, the social benefits of affordable access
to broadband are readily apparent. See MAG-Net Joint Board Comments at 4 n.4 (citing
Comments of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association on NBP Public Notice #16,
GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137, at 19-20 (filed Dec. 1, 2009) (“[I]n some low-income
areas where laptops or netbook-like devices and home broadband connections have been
provided to children, and the technology was thoughtfully integrated into learning and
instruction, research shows positive effects on student academic performance, engagement, and
attitude.”); Comments of Public Knowledge, Media Access Project, the New America
Foundation, and U.S. PIRG, GN Docket No. 09-51, at 1 (filed June 8, 2009) (“[A]ccess to
broadband has become an essential utility.... Students have at their fingertips educational
resources not conceivable a few years ago. Some sources of news and information, once
confined to the printed page, are to be found online only.”)).
20
See, e.g., Comments of the Public Utility Law Project of New York, CC Docket No. 96-
45, at 3 (filed Apr. 11, 1996) (“PULP in the last year received numerous unsolicited letters from
persons notified…of their Lifeline eligibility, and that their monthly basic service rate would be
lowered to $1, a savings of approximately $10 per month. One customer stated: I am writing
you because I have just received your letter offering my family life-line. I was really touched that
someone really cares about the needs of families like mine. You have just gave my children milk
for the month. Thank you very much.”).
21
See MAG-Net Joint Board Comments at 5-8 (noting that lack of access to advanced and
adequate communications facilities decreases opportunities, depresses dignity and self-
sufficiency, and increases the financial struggles of low-income individuals).

-8-
modernized to support broadband connectivity and services.22 The National Broadband Plan

came to similar conclusions regarding the importance of broadband availability and adoption by

low-income individuals, noting that while “it is difficult to quantify the costs of digital

inequality” and of poverty itself, what is certain is “that people will not experience the promised

benefits of broadband – increased earning potential, enhanced connections with friends and

family, improved health and a superior education – without a connection.”23 For these reasons,

the National Broadband Plan noted: “Broadband is a platform for social and economic

opportunity. It can lower the geographic barriers and help minimize socioeconomic disparities –

connecting people from otherwise disconnected communities to job opportunities, avenues for

educational advancement and channels for communication.”24

Likewise, the Commission must account for the increasing utility and ubiquity of mobile

voice, messaging, and data services in making forward-looking reforms to USF’s Low-Income

program. MAG-Net’s “Mobile Justice” campaign, its research, and its education efforts have

focused on the fact that low-income individuals, including members of communities of color,

disproportionately rely on mobile connections to fulfill their communications needs.25 The

22
See Public Interest Reply Comments at 2-4 (citing, for example, Comments of the United
States Telecom Association, WC Docket No. 03-109, CC Docket No. 96-45, at 3 (filed July 15,
2010) (“[T]he marginal value of broadband often is even higher to those in low-income
households because many low-income consumers have a special need for technologies that lower
geographic barriers,…connect people to job opportunities,…and expand channels for
communication.”)).
23
National Broadband Plan at 129.
24
Id. at 169, Box 9-1.
25
See Amalia Deloney, Center for Media Justice, “The Mobile Internet: Communities of
Color and Low-Income Families” (Feb. 2011), available at http://www.mag-
net.org/content/mobile-internet-communities-color-and-low-income-families, and attached
hereto as Attachment B (“According to a report by the Pew Research Center, 18% of blacks and
16% of English-speaking Latinos access the Internet only from their cell phones, compared with
10% of whites.”).

-9-
Commission can and should preserve Lifeline and Link Up support for traditional voice services.

Yet, it also should increase the flexibility of the Low-Income mechanisms in recognition of the

many benefits that mobile connectivity engenders, and should promote the deployment and

adoption of wireline and wireless broadband facilities that are quite capable of supporting voice

service delivered on broadband platforms.

When implementing the universal service provisions of the Telecommunications Act of

1996, the Commission instituted the Lifeline and Link Up programs because “the Act evinces a

renewed concern for the needs of low-income citizens [as] Congress expresses the principle that

rates should be ‘affordable,’ and that access should be provided to ‘low-income consumers’ in all

regions of the nation.”26 The Commission must reform and modernize these mechanisms to

account for the continued challenges that low-income consumers face, as well as the rapidly

evolving technology that these individuals need to keep pace in an economy and society

increasingly reliant on broadband access and mobile connectivity. The MAG-Net Commenters

submit the brief comments that follow to renew their call for reforms proposed in MAG-Net’s

prior filings in these dockets. These comments also question some few proposals in the NPRM

that would decrease the utility of the Low-Income mechanisms – an especially unfortunate

potential outcome at a time when it is most essential to improve the vitality and effectiveness of

programs that close the digital divides faced by MAG-Net member organizations’ constituencies.

26
In the Matter of Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket No. 96-45,
Report & Order, 12 FCC Rcd 8776, ¶ 335 (1997).

- 10 -
 DISCUSSION

I. Lifeline and Link Up Eligibility Criteria Should Define Affordability Realistically,

and Expand Program Availability to Comport with Universal Service Principles.

As MAG-Net Commenters indicated above, Lifeline and Link Up deliver a basic need to

low-income households. Subsidies for communications service adoption cannot eliminate all

financial stress for the individuals and families that benefit from support, but such subsidies do

alleviate some of the impact of economic hardship. The eligibility criteria for providing such

assistance should be realistic and should serve low-income individuals and communities

according to their need for these basic communications capabilities.

The MAG-Net Commenters understand the need for program efficacy and accountability.

They support of course any reforms that will maximize the usefulness of the Low-Income

program for intended recipients by eliminating unnecessary overhead, inefficient spending, or

actual abuse. Unfortunately, the NPRM’s incessant incantation of the phrase “waste, fraud, and

abuse”27 to conjure the specter of a Low-Income program gone awry misses the point of the

reforms that these mechanisms need. Thus, while “protect[ing] the universal service fund

against waste, fraud, and abuse” does undoubtedly “benefit[ ] consumers and keep[ ] rates more

affordable for all consumers by reducing the need to collect funds for the program that are not

appropriately utilized,”28 the failing of Lifeline and Link Up to this point has been under-

utilization of these programs by fully eligible individuals. The NPRM’s concession that growth

27
See, e.g., NPRM ¶ 46. While not fond of using simplistic automated word counts to
determine the priorities enunciated in Commission documents, MAG-Net notes that the NPRM,
appendices, and Commissioner statements apparently contain no fewer than 75 repetitions of the
phrase “waste, fraud, and abuse” or similar, but only 18 instances of the word “poverty” – and
that generally only in reference to the federal poverty guidelines used to determine eligibility.
28
Id. ¶ 39.

- 11 -
in the size of the fund is “not necessarily indicative of waste, fraud, and abuse”29 does not do

nearly enough to acknowledge the historic and continuing under-utilization of the Low-Income

program, nor the fact that one main reason for recent growth in the size of the fund is a long

overdue improvement in outreach methods and genuine participation.

While eliminating waste, fraud, or abuse if and when it actually occurs would be

commendable, MAG-Net Commenters are more troubled by the unfortunate statistics reported at

the outset of the NPRM. In 2009, some “8.6 million eligible households participated in Lifeline

nationwide, which represented [only] 33 percent of the 25.7 million low-income households at

the time.”30 Different enrollment and outreach programs in different states may help to explain

variations in participation rates by state, but the national figure remains shockingly low –

especially considering the insufficiently low income thresholds discussed below, and the unduly

harsh tests for eligibility too often in place for Lifeline and Link Up.

MAG-Net Commenters suggested during the Joint Board proceeding that eligibility

criteria should not be based on unduly restrictive or narrow application of federal poverty income

guideline percentages, nor tied inflexibly to eligibility tests for other federal and state assistance

programs in which an applicant participates. Rather, the criteria should be based on more

accurate indicia of low-income status and the meaning of affordability, taking into account the

total percentage of income that a household spends on connectivity. The NPRM seeks comment

on potentially changing the current Lifeline and Link Up income eligibility criteria, which set

household income at 135% of the federal poverty guidelines as the default maximum income for

29
Id. ¶ 144.
30
Id. ¶ 25.

- 12 -
Low-Income program recipients.31 The NPRM asks specifically about moving the eligibility

default to income to 150% of federal poverty guidelines; yet it notes that the federal poverty

guidelines have themselves been criticized as outdated, and cites reports suggesting that even

earning 150% of the guideline does not permit a household to be self-sufficient.32

MAG-Net referred in its Joint Board Comments to a report on the characteristics of low-

income families, which observed that approximately one-third of all families with children have

incomes below 200% of the federal poverty level.33 That report states that such low-income

families “are nearly twice as likely as middle-income families to report skipping meals or not

being able to pay for food (‘food insecurity’), half again as likely to miss rent, mortgage, or

utility payments (‘housing insecurity’), and twice as likely to lack health insurance as middle-

income families.”34 In light of this data, MAG-Net Commenters reiterate their conclusion that

even low-income families earning at or below 200% of the federal poverty level would not find

basic telecommunications services affordable.

Whether or not the Low-Income program explicitly supports broadband adoption, an

increase from the current 135% threshold to at least the 150% figure cited in the NPRM would

serve the interest of justice and the goal of universal service, as Section 254(b) of the Act

mandates Commission promotion of “affordable” services. MAG-Net Commenters maintain

31
See id. ¶¶ 21, 152-157. As the NPRM also reports, this means that a family of four
earning more than $30,173 would not qualify for Lifeline/Link Up assistance on the basis of the
default income threshold determination, nor would a single individual earning more than a paltry
$14,072. See id. ¶ 21, Chart 1.
32
See id. ¶ 157.
33
Gregory Acs & Austin Nichols, The Urban Institute, “An Assessment of the Income and
Expenses of America’s Low-Income Families: Using Survey Data from the National Survey of
America’s Families” (Sept. 28, 2006), available at http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/
411382_surve.pdf.
34
Id. at 7.

- 13 -
that moving to an even higher level of income expressed as a percentage of federal poverty

guideline earnings would be even more beneficial. This is so especially because the Low-

Income programs can and must transition to support broadband in the near term and because

broadband services tend to be even more expensive than basic phone service – and thus more

unaffordable for people who would most benefit from the improved economic opportunities that

broadband access brings with it.35 MAG-Net Commenters believe that the Commission should

measure “affordability” for broadband or bundled services differently from affordability for

voice services,36 and accordingly should increase the maximum income level for eligible

recipients as the Low-Income program transitions to support individuals’ adoption of broadband-

based service offerings.

II. Coordinated Enrollment Procedures Would Improve Program Participation and

Better Serve Qualified Potential Applicants.

The Referral Order initially sought comment on “whether certain classes of individuals,

such as residents of homeless shelters, should be automatically eligible for participation in the

low-income programs.”37 In response, the MAG-Net Commenters expressed their strong support

for such automatic eligibility, explaining that homeless individuals and members of similarly

disadvantaged classes often do not have the documentation or the required information to prove

eligibility for the Low-Income programs. Yet their inability at times to demonstrate eligibility

does not diminish their need to utilize basic telecommunications services to stay connected with

family, secure a job interview, search for resources, or gain access to opportunities for political

and civic engagement. The MAG-Net Commenters further explained that these obstacles

35
See supra notes 19, 22.
36
See NPRM ¶ 44.
37
Referral Order ¶ 15.

- 14 -
likewise may affect individuals living in transitional housing, battered women’s shelters, half-

way houses, and co-housing or multifamily housing settings, suggesting that “[a]ll individuals so

situated, and those in other vulnerable populations such as refugees and immigrants, may face

barriers to application that the Commission can and should remove, including those based on

such individual’s concerns for privacy and physical safety.”38

The NPRM appears to take a more cautious stance on the benefits of automatic

enrollment measures. It encourages the use of “coordinated” rather than “automatic” enrollment,

where “coordinated” measures require the eligible consumer to choose affirmatively to enroll in

Lifeline rather than being automatically signed up.39 Despite its emphasis on requiring an

affirmative opt-in for Lifeline, the NPRM still discusses in several instances the benefits of

automatic enrollment.40 MAG-Net Commenters continue to support adoption of automatic

enrollment requirements, or at the very least “coordinated” approaches, for states that wish to

participate in the federal Low-Income program.

MAG-Net also continues to believe that persons who receive need-based benefits in

various federal and state categories such as Medicaid, Food Stamps, Supplemental Security

Income, Housing Assistance, and Home Energy Assistance, among others, should be

automatically enrolled in the Lifeline and/or Link Up program, and that sign-up opportunities for

the USF Low-Income program should be available at public schools for which a majority of the

school population qualifies for free and reduced meals. Such automatic enrollment processes

would eliminate cumbersome administrative burdens and costs, and likely would increase

38
MAG-Net Joint Board Comments at 9-10.
39
See NPRM ¶¶ 199-201.
40
See, e.g., id. ¶ 202 (observing that a GAO Report touching upon state enrollment
procedures had “noted that states in its survey found that using various types of automatic
enrollment procedures has a positive impact on reaching and enrolling eligible consumers”).

- 15 -
participation of eligible households. The decision also would come without much risk of waste,

fraud, or abuse, as the process would depend on the determinations of public agencies that

already verify eligibility for various federal and state need-based programs. A coordinated

enrollment procedure that requires opt-in to receive Lifeline/Link Up assistance could work in

similar fashion to improve participation, but only in conjunction with additional steps to improve

outreach and communicate the benefits of Lifeline/Link Up to all eligible applicants.

In that regard, the Commission’s outreach rules should continue to ensure that providers

advertise discounted service availability in languages “that can be read or accessed by any

sizeable non-English speaking populations within a carrier's service area.”41 The Commission

should enforce this policy, and improve upon it to ensure that service providers will make

available to state agencies and community anchor institutions any culturally and linguistically

relevant materials for outreach to communities that predominantly speak other languages.

Adoption of such recommendations and improvements in outreach implementation would be

likely to increase participation by qualified applicants for support.42

III. The Commission Should Reexamine the “One-Per-Household” Rule in Light of the
Changed Nature of Communications Services and the Increased Need for Mobile
Connectivity.

The NPRM makes the frankly obvious and yet welcome observation that “telephone use

has changed” since first implementation of the universal service statutes enacted in 1996, noting

that “[f]ifteen years ago, wireless service was not a mainstream consumer offering; today, 93

41
Referral Order ¶ 32 (citing Lifeline and Link-Up, WC Docket No. 03-109, Report and
Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 8302, ¶¶ 45, 47 (2004)); see
also NPRM ¶ 231.
42
See Referral Order ¶ 32 n.73.

- 16 -
percent of the general population has wireless service.”43 Thus, as the NPRM seems to imply in

at least some passages, Lifeline and Link Up should no longer be confined to a single landline

per household because of the increasingly essential nature of mobile connectivity because of

other problems with the Commission’s definitions of eligible “households” or “residences.”

Yet despite acknowledgments that “the increasing availability of wireless Lifeline

services has…made it more difficult to limit low-income support to a single line per

residence,”44 the NPRM ultimately arrives at the wrong conclusion and suggests codification of a

bright-line one-per-residential address rule along with other measure to prevent duplicate

claims.45 Rather than fighting in this manner the obvious changes in the nature of and need for

personalized and mobile communications devices, the Commission should instead adopt the

suggestions made during the Joint Board proceeding and in other Lifeline/Link Up proceedings

to limit assistance to one supported service per eligible adult.46 Allowing each adult to

demonstrate eligibility and qualify for support would indeed “better serve the needs of low-

income consumers in light of [the Commission’s] statutory obligations, as well as the changing

communications marketplace.”47 As MAG-Net Commenters asserted during the Joint Board

proceeding, rather than limiting households to only one supported wireline or one supported

wireless service, the Commission should reconsider and revise the one-per-household rule.

The growing use of mobile wireless services demands such reconsideration. Mobile

services may complement but not necessarily replace a residential wireline connection for some

43
NPRM ¶ 110 & n.185.
44
Id. ¶ 105.
45
See id. ¶¶ 105-109.
46
See id. ¶ 110.
47
Id.

- 17 -
low-income individuals. Regardless of such substitutability considerations, mobile connectivity

can be the best or the only option at times for low-income individuals to access an array of

economic, educational, and social opportunities. Just as low-income consumers should not have

to choose between other basic necessities and utilities, a low-income consumer should not have

to choose between a wireline and a wireless connection when seeking access to modes of

communication. As MAG-Net has suggested in earlier filings and reiterates here, expanding the

Lifeline program to support broadband and mobile services more explicitly and more effectively

is essential for improving low-income communities’ access to advanced telecommunications

capabilities.48 Making available new supported mobile service options – in addition to useful but

limited options offered by TracFone’s “SafeLink Wireless” program49 and by other carriers who

offer prepaid wireless service with Lifeline support – would increase participation of

undoubtedly eligible Lifeline recipients.50

48
See, e.g., Comments of Access Humboldt, Appalshop, California Center for Rural Policy,
Center For Media Justice, Center For Rural Strategies, Main Street Project, Media Action
Grassroots Network, Mountain Area Information Network, New Mexico Literacy Project, Rural
Broadband Policy Group, Texas Media Empowerment Project, Thousand Kites, and Public
Knowledge on NBP Public Notice #19, GN Docket Nos. 09-137, 09-51, 09-47, at 8 (filed Dec. 7,
2009).
49
While service plans and minutes available to participants vary by state, the SafeLink
program caps users’ minutes at levels too low to make the program as valuable as it should be for
recipients. See Lifeline/SafeLink Fact Sheet, https://www.safelinkwireless.com/Enrollment
Public/benefits.aspx (last visited Apr. 21, 2011); see also Comments of Free Press, GN Docket
No. 09-51, at 239 (filed June 8, 2009) (“Free Press Comments”) (“[L]ow-income households are
increasingly solely reliant on mobile phones for telephone service, and the limited availability of
mobility Lifeline carriers is reducing overall participation in the program.”).
50
Low-income consumers trend towards using the mobile phone as their primary
communication device. See, e.g., Janice A. Hague, “Whose Call Is It? Targeting Universal
Service Programs to Low-Income Households’ Telecommunications Preferences,” 33
Telecomm. Pol’y 129, 136–38 (2009), available at http://warrington.ufl.edu/purc/purcdocs/
papers /0805_Hauge_Whose_Call_is.pdf; see also Aaron Smith, Pew Internet & American Life
Project, Mobile Access 2010, at 5 (July 2010), available at http://www.pewinternet.org
/Reports/2010/Mobile-Access-2010.aspx (“Continuing a trend we first identified in 2009,
minority Americans lead the way when it comes to mobile access – especially mobile access

- 18 -
 The MAG-Net Commenters respectfully submit that Lifeline and Link Up reform must

recognize current realities and trends, such as low-income consumers tendency to choose mobile

services as their entry point for advanced capabilities and Internet access. These facts and other

considerations – such as the unintended and undesirable potential application of the one-per-

household rule to prevent unrelated residents of homeless shelters living at same address from

each obtaining supported services51 – necessitate reconsideration, not re-emphasis of this rule.

Therefore, whatever the outcome of the Commission’s deliberations on the applicability of the

one-per-residence limitation in the context of wireless services, the MAG-Net Commenters

support any and all efforts suggested in the NPRM to eliminate unfair application of the rule that

denies support to qualified individuals living in commercially zoned buildings, tribal areas, or

group living quarters such as senior assisted living centers or domestic violence shelters.52

IV. Improved Verification Procedures Should Not Unduly Burden Eligible Recipients.

The NPRM proposes “to eliminate the option of self-certifying eligibility and to require

all consumers in all states to present documentation of program eligibility when enrolling” for

Lifeline and Link Up.53 It makes this suggestion in conjunction with further discussion of

coordinating enrollment between Lifeline/Link Up and other social service assistance programs

in order to “reduce barriers to participation in the program by service providers and low-income

households” alike.54 MAG-Net supports Commission efforts to reform and maintain the efficacy

and efficiency of the Low-Income program, because identifying individuals who are not

using handheld devices.”); Free Press Comments at 239 (“[L]ow-income households have a
strong preference for the flexibility of pre-paid mobile plans.”).
51
See NPRM ¶¶ 117-125.
52
See id.
53
See id. ¶ 150.
54
Id.

- 19 -
qualified even under the expanded eligibility rules proposed above would make support available

to those who truly need assistance.

Yet, requiring additional documentation over and above what individuals already must

provide to qualify for other assistance programs could diminish the effectiveness of the Lifeline

and Link Up programs. Even providing the type and level of documentation required by most

states already proves burdensome for many low-income individuals, and the process often comes

with the stigma associated with admitting and then proving need. The Commission should not

adopt any policy that places an unfair burden on an already vulnerable population. Such policies

likely would result in the rejection and distrust of the federal Low-Income programs by low-

income individuals, and therefore would be counterproductive to increasing program

participation above the already low levels cited in the NPRM.

Moreover, adding new verification procedures that might be equally as complicated or

more so than existing application requirements would come at some administrative cost to the

Low-Income program. Furthermore, as MAG-Net has noted previously in this docket, some

individuals applying for service already are unable to provide responses to seemingly innocuous

questions, such as a home address inquiry. These questions can be difficult or impossible to

answer for individuals without a stable home address at the time of application or at the time of

any later verification procedure. Adding new and unduly burdensome verification requirements

to an already complicated, stigmatized, stressful, and oftentimes byzantine application process

for need-based programs would diminish the Low-Income program’s effectiveness rather than

improve it.

- 20 -
V. The Commission Should Expand the Low-Income Program to Provide Support for
Broadband, and Must Not Cap the Fund Nor Wait for Definitive Pilot Program
Results to Initiate this Transition.

For all of the reasons set forth in the Introduction and Background sections of these

comments and in the NPRM itself, MAG-Net wholly endorses the modernization of USF Low-

Income program to provide adoption support and discounts for broadband connectivity and

services.55 The Commission also has recognized the importance of this transition, and its

proposal to initiate pilot programs exploring the best methods for making that transition could be

a promising start – so long as those pilot programs are well designed and executed.

MAG-Net Commenters note with interest, for example, the potential value of pilot

programs that could “test different approaches to providing support for broadband to low-income

consumers across different geographic areas” and that could address “unique barriers faced by

certain groups of low-income non-adopters such as Tribal communities or Americans for whom

English may be a second language.”56 MAG-Net Commenters also note the NPRM’s assessment

that “[t]he cost of customer equipment necessary to access the Internet (including computers or

other devices) has been shown to be a major barrier to adoption, particularly for low-income

households,”57 and thus support the suggestion to require that some pilot program participants

provide recipients with necessary computer hardware. However, beginning to implement pilot

programs and study the transition to broadband is not enough, and the Commission actually must

commence that comprehensive transition with all due speed.

55
See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 266-275.
56
Id. ¶ 280.
57
Id. ¶ 283.

- 21 -
 What the Commission certainly must not do at this time, therefore, is impose a cap on

Lifeline or Link Up58 – on programs that, as the NPRM acknowledges, have historically served

only a fraction of eligible low-income households even with the current overly restrictive

standards for qualifying as “low-income.” The imposition of any cap would dampen the

effectiveness of improved outreach, and undeniably would result either in (1) reduced benefits

for all eligible recipients or (2) arbitrary denial of benefits to some eligible recipients. Neither

result is acceptable, especially at a time when USF must look to the present and future

communications service needs for low-income consumers, who increasingly will be left behind

without access to adequate and affordable broadband telecommunications facilities.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the MAG-Net Commenters suggest that the Commission take

the steps described herein to reform and modernize Lifeline and Link Up, implementing policies

that will raise maximum income thresholds, improve enrollment and outreach, and reflect the

trend towards broadband and mobile communications.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Matthew F. Wood

Amalia Deloney Matthew F. Wood

Grassroots Policy Director Media Access Project
Center for Media Justice 1625 K Street, NW
436 14th Street, 5th Floor Suite 1000
Oakland, CA 94612 Washington, DC 20006
(202) 232-4300
mwood@mediaaccess.org
Counsel for Media Action Grassroots Network

April 21, 2011

58
See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 145-146.

- 22 -
THE FUTURE OF THE INTERNET:
UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND SUBSIDIES
WHAT IS THE UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND?
Formally established by the FCC in 1997, the Universal Service Fund is a set of resources and policy dedicated to
making sure everyone has equal access to the basic telecommunications services they need to stay connected.
Based on a concept articulated in the 1934 Telecommunications Act, the Act stated that all people in the United
States shall have access to “rapid, efficient, nationwide…communications service with adequate facilities at rea-
sonable charges.” After the break up of AT&T in 1984, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted
several programs to help make telephone service more affordable for low income households and in rural areas.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 expanded the traditional definition of universal service - affordable, nation-
wide telephone service – to include advanced telecommunications and information services and added support
for universal service to include rural health care providers and eligible schools and libraries.1 The Universal Service
Fund (USF) was created by the FCC in 1997 to meet Congressional universal service goals as mandated by
the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Today the USF has four different subsidy programs, High Cost Support;
Low Income Support (Link-Up and Lifeline); Schools and Library Support (E-Rate); Rural Health Support. USF is
financed through fees paid by telephone customers. These USF surcharges are typically 10-15% of a phone bill.
Total USF collections were about $7.2 billion in 2009. By far the largest program of USF is the high-cost program,
which accounted for almost $4.3 billion in disbursements in 2009.

WHY DOES THE USF NEED TO BE REFORMED?

While the Universal Service Fund was mostly successful in getting many of the poorest and most isolated in the
nation hooked up to plain old telephone service, staying connected in the 21st century requires more. The signifi-
cance of the Internet is growing and telephone, television, and data services are often delivered together on digital
platforms. This increasing reliance on new digital technologies--like mobile communications--require reforms to the
Universal Service Fund that address the need for full and affordable broadband and mobile communication access
in rural areas and poor communities. Despite the fact that broadband is viewed by many as the “adequate facility”
of the 21st century, under current regulations low-income households are not eligible to receive USF support explic-
itly for broadband services. Though schools, libraries, and rural health care facilities are eligible- the resources
distributed to these anchor institutions in poor communities are insufficient to close existing wealth and education
gaps. Further, the USF currently raises approximately $7 billion annually in subsidies. Yet, nearly 60% of this is dis-
tributed to wealthy corporate telecommunications carriers, not poor consumers. These conditions need to change.2

Universal Service Reform is a civil rights issue. Communication is an essential human need and fundamental
human right. Today there is near universal consensus among U.S. policymakers that widespread availability and
adoption of broadband technology is vital to U.S. jobs, and our economy. USF has helped make telecommunica-
tions services available to millions of people who might otherwise have been off the grid. But some very serious
inequities still exist. Recently the FCC announced that nearly 24 million Americans are still without access to broad-

1  http://www.fcc.gov/oig/oigaudpm-usf.html
2  “Universal Service Reform & Convergence: USF Policy for the 21st Century”, S. Derek, Turner, Research Director, Free Press, September
2006, Revised September 30th 2006.

www.centerformediajustice.org • www.mediagrassroots.org
band.3 Only months before the Social Science Research Council found that “broadband access is a prerequisite
of social and economic inclusion”4 and the Center for Social Inclusion found that “broadband builds the economy,”
and that communities without access, “are less able to build their economies or the state and national economy.”5
Reforming the Universal Service Fund will expand broadband access and close the digital divide without over-
reliance on corporate investment.

HOW DOES USF REFORM HELP COMMUNITIES OF COLOR AND THE POOR?
The world is changing, and increasingly, having access to the Internet and knowing how to use it determines who
has a chance to succeed, and who is left behind. Communities that are disconnected from broadband access are
also disconnected from its social benefits. Job creation and retention, expanded health care, and quality public
education are all dependent on full and affordable Internet access. Indeed, improving the quality of life for commu-
nities of color is directly tied to their ability to access open and affordable high speed Internet. High speed Internet
is the 21st century ‘doorway’ to economic growth, democratic engagement, and self-determined freedom – and a
reformed USF is the key. USF reforms that expand subsidies to the poor and reduce corporate subsidies to wealthy
telecom carriers can help communities at the margins expand opportunity, remain culturally connected, and advo-
cate for change. As the numbers of people of color using the Internet – and its relevance in their lives – grows, it is
imperative that this critical national infrastructure not be left to the whims of the market.

WHAT’S AT STAKE?
Reforming the Universal Service Fund so it may be used to make broadband service as universal and affordable
as possible will help close the digital divide, foster economic growth and democratic engagement in the poorest
communities, and improve quality of life for those at the margins. We must reform the USF to:
• Subsidize networks to make high speed Internet connections possible
• Directly subsidize the households that can’t afford Internet connections through vouchers
• Ensure high speed broadband is treated as a public service, not just a commercial service
• Ensure USF is directed towards broadband adoption, not just build out

Broadband deployment and adoption in poor communities, communities of color, and rural communities is essen-
tial to the public health and public safety of our nation, both today and into the future. These reforms are only
possible if FCC Chairman Genachowski reclassifies broadband as a communications system. The future of
the Internet is in our hands.

3  http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/FCC-1424-Million-Without-Broadband-109473
4  http://www.ssrc.org/programs/broadband-adoption-in-low-income-communities/
5  http://www.centerforsocialinclusion.org/publications/?url=broadband-in-the-mississippi-delta-a-21st-century-racial-justice-issue&ch_
url=executive-summary-4

www.centerformediajustice.org • www.mediagrassroots.org
THE MOBILE INTERNET:
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR AND LOW-INCOME FAMILIES

“Research has shown that people with an actual connection at home, the ability to go online on a computer
at home, are more engaged in a lot of different things than people who rely on access from work, a friend’s
house, or a phone.”
—Aaron Smith, Pew Senior Research Specialist

I LOVE MY WIRELESS TOYS, BUT THEY’RE EXPENSIVE AND LIMITED

We all love our cell phones, PSPs, iPads, and laptops—because they connect us to community, opportunity, and
democracy. However, under the current rules passed by the Federal Communications Commission, our wireless
devices don’t always love us back. Right now, users of mobile broadband get none of the protections provided
to users of fixed broadband. Today, communities of color, America’s poor, and young people are the most likely
to access the Internet through their wireless device. As a result, the poorest and most vulnerable wireless users
often get stuck with high bills and data plans that only give us half the Internet we need. If America’s most under-
represented communities have only one door through which they can access the most vibrant and decentralized
media in a generation, then everything must be done to keep that door wide open.

I DON’T GET IT! WHAT’S THE DIFFERENT BETWEEN FIXED AND MOBILE BROADBAND?
Okay, let’s break it down.

• Fixed Broadband: Internet services such as DSL, cable, and fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) are wired to specific
buildings. Traditional wi-fi hotspots also provide connectivity over a limited radius around fixed wireless access
points.

• Mobile Broadband: Mobile broadband refers to high-speed wireless Internet connections and services
designed for use from arbitrary locations—i.e., broadband access in the cellular environment. Just as the cel-
lular phone freed users from a phone plugged into the wall at a specific location, mobile broadband is doing
the same. Users are no longer confined to desks, tethered to wires, or restricted to a stationary environment.
Cell phones, and other mobile devices, now allow users to connect to a wireless broadband Internet service
wherever they are.

WHAT’S THE PROBLEM AGAIN? THE CHALLENGES OF MOBILE BROADBAND

• Prices/fees: Monthly service plans can cost more than traditional broadband services, often including over-
age fees for larger volumes of data usage, and other hidden costs such as activation fees, the cost of network
cards, and early termination fees.

• Network speed: “High-speed” is often misleading. Mobile broadband is usually slower than fixed broadband,
sometimes less than 1 Mbps (vs. 4 Mbps on fixed), depending on the service provider’s network capability.

www.centerformediajustice.org • www.mag-net.org
• Network coverage: Though mobile broadband coverage has expanded, it’s still limited. Cities, along with cor-
ridors of the interstate highway system, have the best coverage, while availability is challenging or non-existent
in rural areas.

• Network reliability: The range of reception is more limited—service can be disrupted inside large buildings
due to interference, or in areas with difficult terrain.

• Bandwidth: The bandwidth available to mobile broadband customers is generally much smaller. Heavy
Internet users often notice they cannot surf, stream, view or download as quickly on their mobile devices.

• Functionality: A cell phone or mobile device is not a substitute for a laptop or desktop computer. Many
everyday Internet needs such as applying for a job, conducting research, registering for classes, or accessing
government or social services are difficult or impossible on a mobile device.

WHAT’S AT STAKE FOR COMMUNITIES OF COLOR AND LOW–INCOME FAMILIES?

As we transition to a new economy, the power to communicate, and therefore imagine a better future, should
belong to everyone. But in December 2010 the FCC passed rules that provide only the most minimal protection
to wireless users.1 These new rules have created a segregated Internet where wireless users are left with blocked
and tiered service.

The lack of consumer protections for wireless users directly disadvantages individuals already excluded by the
digital divide. According to a report by the Pew Research Center, 18% of blacks and 16% of English-speaking
Latinos access the Internet only from their cell phones, compared with 10% of whites.2 While Latinos and blacks
are more likely to access the Web via their cell phones, they are often limited by the content they can access, and
the functionality that is available for everyday needs. For example, it can be difficult—or impossible—to fill out a
job application or schedule an immigration appointment on a cell phone.

“Ethnic consumers” (what the companies call us) are the major buying power in the telecom market3. “Cell phone
ownership is higher among African-Americans and Latinos than among whites[, and] minority [sic] cell phone own-
ers take advantage of a much greater range of their phones’ features compared with white mobile phone users.”4
By 2009, one out of every three dollars spent on telecommunications services came from U.S. ethic communities.5
This high usage drives how wireless companies interact with us.

1 http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20026283-266.html
2  http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Mobile-Access-2010/Summary-of-Findings.aspx
3 http://www.insight-corp.com/reports/ethnic2.asp
4 http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Mobile-Access-2010.aspx
5  US Hispanic Use of Telecommunications Services: Spending Patterns for Wireless and Wireline Services 2010-1015, http://www.insight-
corp.com/reports/hisp10.asp

www.centerformediajustice.org • www.mag-net.org
Facts You Can Use6

• Nearly two-thirds of African-Americans (64%) and Latinos (63%) are wireless Internet users.

• 87% of blacks and Latinos own a cell phone, compared with 80% of whites.

• 18% of blacks and 16% of English-speaking Latinos are cell-only wireless users, compared with 10% of whites.
In total, more than half of African-Americans (54%) and Latinos (53%) go online from a mobile phone.

• 19% of 18-to-29-year-olds are cell-only wireless users, compared with 13% of 30-to-49-year-olds, 9% of 50-to-
64-year-olds and 5% of those ages 65 and older. In total, nearly two-thirds (65%) of 18-to-29-year-olds are
cell phone Internet users and 84% go online using either a cell phone or a laptop with a wireless Internet
connection.

• 17% of those earning less than $30,000 per year are cell-only wireless users, as are 20% of those who have not
graduated from high school and 15% of those who have graduated high school but have not attended college.

• Among those who go online using a handheld device, 55% of English-speaking Latinos, 52% of college gradu-
ates, and 56% of those with a household income of $75,000 or more per year use their cell phone to go online
several times a day.

What You Can Do: A Media Justice Vision for Wireless Equity

Broadband parity: Our national broadband strategy must ensure parity between fixed and mobile broadband,
treating them as different and bordering entry points on the same communications backbone.

Address the needs of low-income users: Mobile broadband affords communities of color and America’s poor
greater access to the social and economic benefits of the Internet. Lifeline/Link-up programs should expand dis-
counts to qualified low-income wireless customers to purchase handsets and subsidize monthly connectivity.

Job training and workforce development: Mobile broadband policy should expand opportunities for skills
development and create living-wage jobs in this rapid-growth industry, moving our communities from exploited
consumers to skilled and well-paid workers.

Consumer protections: Federal rules must protect mobile broadband users from unexpected fees related to acti-
vation, early termination, and data overages.

6  Source for all information in this section: http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Mobile-Access-2010/Summary-of-Findings.aspx

www.centerformediajustice.org • www.mag-net.org